Retracted customs statements need independent corroboration before sustaining smuggling convictions; uncorroborated co-accused statements were insufficient.
Retracted statements recorded by customs under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act were held insufficient, without independent corroboration, to sustain convictions for smuggling-related offences. The court accepted that a retracted confession may in an appropriate case support conviction, but only if supported by reliable independent material; here, the prosecution evidence did not directly establish knowing participation, and the co-accused statements had limited evidentiary value against others. With no adequate corroboration from prosecution witnesses, the Customs Act conviction could not stand, and the related charge under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act also failed because it depended on the same evidentiary foundation.
Issues: Whether the respondents' conviction for offences under the Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act could be sustained on the basis of retracted statements recorded by customs without independent corroboration.
Analysis: The recorded statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act were retracted, and the independent evidence did not directly establish the respondents' knowing participation in smuggling or the export and re-import of contraband goods. The reasoning accepted that a retracted confession may, in an appropriate case, support conviction, but as a matter of prudence it requires corroboration from independent material. The statements of co-accused could not bind the others except within the limited evidentiary value recognised by law, and no adequate corroboration emerged from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. On that footing, the conviction under the Customs Act was unsustainable, and once that foundation failed, the charge under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act also could not stand independently.
Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly affirmed, and the respondents were not liable to conviction on the evidence led.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
